And thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him: The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, hath met with us. And now let us go, we pray thee, three days’journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. And I know that the king of Egypt will not give you leave to go, except by a mighty hand. And I will put forth My hand, and smite Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in the midst thereof. And after that he will let you go. And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians. And it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty; but every woman shall ask of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.’ (Exodus 3:18–22)
וּבָאתָ אַתָּה וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, וַאֲמַרְתֶּם אֵלָיו: ה' אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִיִּים נִקְרָה עָלֵינוּ. וְעַתָּה, נֵלֲכָה נָּא דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וְנִזְבְּחָה לַה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ. וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי לֹא יִתֵּן אֶתְכֶם מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לַהֲלֹךְ, וְלֹא בְּיָד חֲזָקָה. וְשָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת יָדִי, וְהִכֵּיתִי אֶת מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹל נִפְלְאֹתַי אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יְשַׁלַּח אֶתְכֶם. וְנָתַתִּי אֶת חֵן הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרָיִם. וְהָיָה כִּי תֵלֵכוּן – לֹא תֵלְכוּ רֵיקָם. וְשָׁאֲלָה אִשָּׁה מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ וּמִגָּרַת בֵּיתָהּ, כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב וּשְׂמָלֹת, וְשַׂמְתֶּם עַל בְּנֵיכֶם וְעַל בְּנֹתֵיכֶם, וְנִצַּלְתֶּם אֶת מִצְרָיִם. (שמות ג', יח-כב)
In “Jacob’s Serpent and Israel’s Lion” I showed the tribes characterized along a Jacob-to-Israel spectrum. Judah’s lion (Genesis 49:8–9) and Benjamin’s wolf (verse 27) display direct, brave “Israel-like” confrontation. Dan’s serpent biting a horse’s heel and throwing its rider (verse 17), and Gad attacking from behind (verse 19), show indirect “Jacob-like” conduct, their blessings even containing the root ע־ק־ב.
Jacob taught that both traits belong in Israel according to time and circumstance: sometimes strategy, cunning, even deception, sometimes direct, resolute confrontation.
The exodus likewise displays this duality. Moses’ firm demands and ten plagues are direct, forceful Israelite confrontation. Yet there are Jacob-like moves: the apparently innocent “let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness” (Exodus 5:3), and requesting silver and gold vessels. Israel plainly intended neither return after three days nor restoration of borrowed objects, as Pharaoh finally learned: “And it was told the king of Egypt that the people were fled” (Exodus 14:5).
Perhaps deception drew Pharaoh to final defeat at the sea: without feeling deceived he might have let Israel go, escaping ultimate punishment. Yet why use Jacob-like cunning when the LORD is stronger, openly striking Egypt through miracles? Why not exclusively the direct Israelite path?
The stratagem’s chief purpose apparently concealed the truth from Israel itself, beyond deceiving Pharaoh.
Moses had to convince Israel as well as Egypt’s king (Exodus 6:13). The people initially believed (Exodus 4:29–31), but later “they hearkened not unto Moses for impatience of spirit, and for cruel bondage” (Exodus 6:9). His mission seemed so shaken that he despaired of approaching Pharaoh when even Israelites resisted. His request worsened bondage, provoking Israelite officers’ opposition (Exodus 5:20).
After departure, God avoided the shorter Philistine route to Canaan lest warfare cause regret and return (Exodus 13:17).
Resistance and repeated requests to return continued at the sea (Exodus 14:11–12), a month later (Exodus 16:2–3), Rephidim (Exodus 17:3), Kibroth-hattaavah (Numbers 11:4–6), the scouts’ sin (Numbers 14:2–4), and circling Edom (Numbers 21:5). The danger remained so real that Deuteronomy’s king must not multiply horses lest he return Israel to Egypt (Deuteronomy 17:16).
Accustomed to slavery’s relative security, Israel feared the unknown wilderness. Had Moses disclosed permanent departure, they might refuse and sabotage it.
A gradual process was therefore necessary: presenting redemption softly as temporary, “three days’ journey into the wilderness,” enabled departure without full comprehension. Only after rescue could they recognize a new, irreversible course rather than a short journey.
